Dear Group, *1. Applicability of Court Fee Act of 1870 for charging fees under the RTI Act:*
The recent High Court judgment has stated that the powers akin to civil court, acquired by an Information Commission by virtue of section 18 of the RTI Act is limited to what has been laid down under section 18 (3) (a) to (f) and therefore application of provisions of Court Fee Act of 1870 *would also be limited to section 18(3) (a) to (f).* [ application limited for powers but bountiful for other purposes :) ] * 2. Applicability of a provision of Telecom Regulatory Act for charging fees under the RTI Act:* a. RTI Act has explicitly used the word fee time and again in section 6(1), 7(1), 7(3), 7(5), 10(2), 18(1), 26(3), 27(2), 28(2): 6(1) fees to be accompanied with the request for information. 7(1) time limit for providing the information subject to payment of any fees. 7(3) intimation together with calculation of fees demanded towards cost of information 7(5) fees towards cost of providing information. 10(2) similar to 7(3) & (5) but towards severed and partial information. 18(1) provision to complain for demand of unreasonable fees. 26(3) notices relating to fees for access to information i.e. 6(1). 27(2) references to 6(1), 7(1) & (5) ( fees towards application and cost of information) (Appropriate Government) 28(2) same as 27(2) (Competent Authority). As one can see, that in the RTI Act, the explicit use of word fee has been made only in reference with: sec. 6(1) the fees to be accompanied along with the application sec. 7(1) fees towards the cost of information b. Please note that the section 14 (A) (3) of the Telecom Regulatory Act explicitly uses the word fee for the purpose of that particular section of the same Act. c. Now to draw a parallel from the explicit use of word fee in another Act for implicit inference of the same in RTI Act would be inapt, especially when the RTI Act has explicitly and specifically provided for fees towards making an initial application and further fees towards the cost of information. 3. Law Commission is an advisory body for recommending legislative reforms, it cannot assume the role of Legislature (to enact) or Judiciary (to interpret what has been enacted), unless empowered to do so. I would appreciate if one can provide a link or a soft copy of the relevant provisions of an Act which empowers the Law Commission to do so. 4. The purpose of participating in this debate is to share our point of views, and thereby mutually increasing our knowledge, respecting each individual member's point of view. Warm Regards, Sunil. -- It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen - Aristotle
